Political Crossfire Forums

[MoscowMatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095680.stm

Mr Miliband sent his green tax plan to the chancellor, says the paper
Environment Secretary David Miliband has confirmed the government is holding discussions on tackling climate change using green taxes.
He refused to confirm details, shown in a leaked letter, which may include "pay as you drive", cheap-flight taxes and levies on energy-wasting appliances.

He told Sky News that "the longer we wait, the more costly it will be".

Meanwhile Conservative leader David Cameron has told the BBC he would be prepared to tax air travel.

Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, said "hard choices" had to be made to combat climate change.

The comments come ahead of a report expected to warn climate change may cut global annual economic output by up to 20%.

The influential report by economist Nicholas Stern is due to be published on Monday.

The Mail on Sunday quotes a leaked letter from Mr Miliband to Chancellor Gordon Brown from 18 October, which it says calls for urgent action in next month's public spending review and next year's Budget.

In the letter, Mr Miliband calls for measures to combat "car use and ownership", and a "substantial increase" in road tax, the paper claims. He also calls for a new pay-per-mile pollution tax.

The paper said leaked proposals suggest families with big cars could end up paying more than £1,000 a year in additional tax.

'Tax flights'

Changing people's behaviour is only achieved by "market forces and price signals," Mr Miliband wrote.

He added: "As our understandings of climate change increases, it is clear more needs to be done."

The minister also suggests making flights subject to VAT, for either domestic flights or "better still all EU flights," the Mail says.

Mr Miliband also told Sky News that the UK was responsible for "two per cent of global emissions" and that it was "vital that this is a global response, not just a national response".

He said: "In the UK I think we should be proud that our country is leading the way in the reduction of the greenhouses gases, the carbon dioxides that are so dangerous.


Higher emission vehicles could face higher road tax

"It's very significant that the economics revealed by Sir Nicholas Stern's report should be that the longer we wait - and certainly the longer we wait beyond the ten to 15 year timeframe that's set by the scientists - the longer we wait, the more costly it will be.

"I think it's good that the Conservatives have come out of the Stone Age, they want to debate these issues.

"I look forward to the next election when all parties are competing to show that they can make a difference on the climate."

Tax hikes

Sir Menzies told BBC One's Sunday AM programme: "We have absolutely no option but to deal with the problem of climate change and nothing but hard choices will do it."

Meanwhile Mr Cameron spoke about green levies in an interview for the BBC One's The Politics Show.

He told the programme: "Some green taxes do hit the poorest in our society, so we have to think about that very carefully before we make taxation decisions.

"If it means putting a tax on air travel, then yes, that's something we'd be prepared to do."

But he said budgetary decisions should be made closer to budgetary times.

"We'll come up with those ideas closer to a general election - but green taxes will go up."

Mr Cameron also gave his backing to Liberal Democrat-controlled Richmond council's plans to charge the drivers of the most polluting vehicles higher parking fees.

He also said he would put a wind turbine and solar panels on top of Downing Street if he became prime minister.

The Stern Review, due out on Monday, will examine economic, not environmental, arguments of global warming.

Sir Nicholas's report is expected to claim that at the very best the cost of tackling global warming would be 1% of annual economic output.

The report looked at the impact of global warming on economic output, or gross domestic product (GDP), until 2100.

A new report, Up In Smoke 2, based on research from a coalition of UK aid agencies and environmental groups, says climate change is already affecting Africa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is the governments answer to problems like this ALWAYS tax hikes.

Use buses we are told. I get one bus every 3 hours past my door, if I'm lucky!!

More tax on planes. OK so you get STILL the same number of planes in the sky they just become a bit emptier and therefore ironically not as energy efficient per person!!

Also you always here people talk about flying as some people going on luxury holidays!! Well excuse me if some of us are quite dependent on flying because I have yet to find a quicker way to get to Budapest! Perhaps if the government would pay for me to take a week off work each month then I can take the train?!! :lol:

We are responsible for just 2% of the worlds emissions So I have heard. So what difference will taxing make? It will just help to stagnate the economy whilst China's and India's continue to rise. They are two of the fastest growing polluters so anything we do would soon be canceler out by them.

What's needed is research and development of cleaner fuels and propulsion technology, which once developed we could then sell to the rest of the world.

All taxes will do is to paper over the cracks.

[slitedeviance]

MoscowMatt wrote: What's needed is research and development of cleaner fuels and propulsion technology, which once developed we could then sell to the rest of the world.

Where are you proposing the funding to come from? If it was privately backed ventures then they are less likely to receive the funding to move them past prototype stages for a long time.

If it was government funded there would hopefully (though knowing Labour probably not) be enough funding to actually progress with alacrity but then where would we generate the backing from?

[DSwain]

I find the idea of increasing the tax burden on consumption attractive, as long as there is a concomitant decrease in direct taxation.

[scotsboyuk]

DSwain wrote: I find the idea of increasing the tax burden on consumption attractive, as long as there is a concomitant decrease in direct taxation.

I prefer the idea of lowering taxes on more environmentally friendly practices to balance out tax increases on environmentally unfriendly activities.

[MoscowMatt]

DSwain wrote: I find the idea of increasing the tax burden on consumption attractive, as long as there is a concomitant decrease in direct taxation.

Hmmm I live in the countryside we just don't have public transport!! The rural communities always suffer at the hands of this lunacy because we need our OWN vehicles! The best solution would be more congestion charges in cities a la London.

Apparently per person planes emit less CO2 than cars, so why pick on aviation? Perhaps some MP lives under a flightpath!! :lol:

If you cut direct taxation and raise green taxes I don't think that will help the environment as people will still be able to afford to run their gas guzzlers as a result of the direct tax cuts.

[MoscowMatt]

slitedeviance wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: What's needed is research and development of cleaner fuels and propulsion technology, which once developed we could then sell to the rest of the world.

Where are you proposing the funding to come from? If it was privately backed ventures then they are less likely to receive the funding to move them past prototype stages for a long time.

If it was government funded there would hopefully (though knowing Labour probably not) be enough funding to actually progress with alacrity but then where would we generate the backing from?

Good points, that would have to be bridges crossed as and when we come to it. How about we develop the greener alternatives then once that has done you can get backing on it by then whacking the tax on the old dirty fuels!

One point. If the government is so concerned about pollution on aviation then why does Tony Blair need those TWO planes he has? Let him go through the bloody Eurotunnel next time he goes to Brussels!! :lol:

[slitedeviance]

MoscowMatt wrote: Good points, that would have to be bridges crossed as and when we come to it. How about we develop the greener alternatives then once that has done you can get backing on it by then whacking the tax on the old dirty fuels!

I'd agree with this. There's no point taxing people more for using more damaging fuels when the alternatives simply aren't available or effective.

Quote: If the government is so concerned about pollution on aviation then why does Tony Blair need those TWO planes he has? Let him go through the bloody Eurotunnel next time he goes to Brussels!! :lol:

I don't know, I use the eurotunnel and I really wouldn't want him to have to face me on a monday morning!

How about we make him swim the channel and then walk?

[Spitfire]

I am someone who is pretty concerned about the impact of climate change on the globe. I try my best to be as green as possible - use public transport, recycle and buy environmentally friendly products. I found a great website (http://www.carbonneutral.com) where you can offset a number of CO2 producing activities through funding various projects such as help plant a tree and maintain a forest, sustainable energy development and future technologies. For the past two years, I have asked my family to chip together and buy me a 'CarbonNeutral Citizen' pack as my Christmas present in order to offset the over 9 tonnes that is estimated each UK resident uses per year through home use and driving. I also use the air-travel function when I need to fly.

The pack costs £90 and flying from Manchester to Alicante (2 people return) costs £10. Now, 17.5% of these costs are VAT. IMO, it would be a good first step if instead of imposing a green tax on everyone, they removed the VAT on such schemes as this and promoted individual action. I also think that this green tax will be used as another stealth tax to fill public coffers. You could pretty much guarantee that if they bring in "pay as you drive, levies on energy inefficient products and a tax on air-travel" then it could costs the average person more than £100 per year.

The UK is already leading the way globally on climate change. I agree with the other members who comment that nations such as China, India and the US have a much bigger impact on climate change, yet seem to be willing to let European nations pick up their slack on these issues. Climate change is a global issue that needs global remedies through global action. We should be focusing on getting all nations aboard the subject rather than attempting to impose ever increasing taxes on the UK citizen.

[antonio62]

MoscowMatt wrote: Also you always here people talk about flying as some people going on luxury holidays!! Well excuse me if some of us are quite dependent on flying because I have yet to find a quicker way to get to Budapest! Perhaps if the government would pay for me to take a week off work each month then I can take the train?!! :lol:

There are trains that could get you there faster or at least in roughly the same time once the whole airport security etc is taken into consideration. Just no one wants to install them.

These taxesa wont actually make a difference because they wont deter people from doing it. If they take off taxes on other things then people will just redirect the money they have saved on those to the things that are more expensive.

[Pebble]

It is a normal day in London, the roads are blocked, fumes hug the air and the quiet sound of politicians hopping onto the latest bandwagon can be heard dimly in the distance...

MoscowMatt wrote:
More tax on planes. OK so you get STILL the same number of planes in the sky they just become a bit emptier and therefore ironically not as energy efficient per person!!

Very true. The best way to lower the ammount of air traffic in our skies is to stop expanding our airports; oddly enough, this is a government policy. :roll:

Quote: I find the idea of increasing the tax burden on consumption attractive, as long as there is a concomitant decrease in direct taxation.

That wouldn't produce the desired effect. Im with scotsboy, we need to lower taxes and therefore costs on public transport and use the profits from higher taxation on undesirable options to then improve and support that.

[MoscowMatt]

antonio62 wrote:
There are trains that could get you there faster or at least in roughly the same time once the whole airport security etc is taken into consideration. Just no one wants to install them.


Have you ever used the Hungarian rail network??!! :lol: :lol:

It takes about 6 hours just to get as far as Vienna from Budapest!!

Also you wouldn't just need the fast trains you would need to relay all the track.

[antonio62]

MoscowMatt wrote: antonio62 wrote:
There are trains that could get you there faster or at least in roughly the same time once the whole airport security etc is taken into consideration. Just no one wants to install them.


Have you ever used the Hungarian rail network??!! :lol: :lol:

It takes about 6 hours just to get as far as Vienna from Budapest!!

Also you wouldn't just need the fast trains you would need to relay all the track.

If the EU (or a collective of national governments) wanted they could easily get a high speed rail network linking all the major cities in Europe.